Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Mar 3;17(3):e0264533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264533

Photobiomodulation reduces hippocampal apoptotic cell death and produces a Raman spectroscopic “signature”

David J Davies 1,2,*, Mohammed Hadis 3, Valentina Di Pietro 1, Giuseppe Lazzarino 4, Mario Forcione 1,2, Georgia Harris 5, Andrew R Stevens 1,2, Wai Cheong Soon 1, Pola Goldberg Oppenheimer 5, Michael Milward 3, Antonio Belli 1,2, William M Palin 3
Editor: Michael R Hamblin6
PMCID: PMC8893683  PMID: 35239693

Abstract

Apoptotic cell death within the brain represents a significant contributing factor to impaired post-traumatic tissue function and poor clinical outcome after traumatic brain injury. After irradiation with light in the wavelength range of 600–1200 nm (photobiomodulation), previous investigations have reported a reduction in apoptosis in various tissues. This study investigates the effect of 660 nm photobiomodulation on organotypic slice cultured hippocampal tissue of rats, examining the effect on apoptotic cell loss. Tissue optical Raman spectroscopic changes were evaluated. A significantly higher proportion of apoptotic cells 62.8±12.2% vs 48.6±13.7% (P<0.0001) per region were observed in the control group compared with the photobiomodulation group. After photobiomodulation, Raman spectroscopic observations demonstrated 1440/1660 cm-1 spectral shift. Photobiomodulation has the potential for therapeutic utility, reducing cell loss to apoptosis in injured neurological tissue, as demonstrated in this in vitro model. A clear Raman spectroscopic signal was observed after apparent optimal irradiation, potentially integrable into therapeutic light delivery apparatus for real-time dose metering.

Introduction and background

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant contributor to global morbidity and mortality, affecting individuals of all ages [1]. After an initial traumatic injury to the brain, a significant number of neurological cells are lost to apoptosis contributing to a reduction in both neuronal and glial cell populations within the injured brain [2]. Apoptotic cells have been observed both in and around cerebral contusions (areas of necrotic cell death), as well as in brain regions remote to areas of structural pathology [3]. In vitro studies have identified that a threshold proportion of apoptotic cells in and around cerebral contusions (66.5% of the observed cellular population) demonstrates a sensitivity of 89.5% and specificity of 66.7% in predicting mortality after severe TBI [3]. Cells undergoing apoptotic transformation (particularly those involved in ascending tracts of oligodendritic lineage [4]) have been observed in traumatic spinal cord injury, spreading to adjacent spinal segments [5], potentially contributing to the reduction in physiological function observed clinically.

Currently, there exist no clinically translated interventional treatments that are aimed at reducing the burden of neurological cell loss during the acute phases of TBI. The majority of clinical management strategies focus on the re-establishment of brain environmental homeostasis [6]: removing active compression, optimising perfusion and oxygenation [7], along with the restoration of functional anatomy. Any new therapeutic approach aimed at reducing the primary burden of cell loss (particularly due to apoptosis within the tissue injury penumbra [3]) has the potential to significantly improve the functional outcome of individuals following TBI.

Photobiomodulation (PBM) or ‘low-level light therapy” (LLLT) is the therapeutic application of light for the purpose of facilitating healing and regeneration via any given light source, most frequently light-emitting diodes (LEDs) or a laser. Positive responses have been recorded with the use of light in the wavelength range of 600–1200 nm [8–10], with peak effects observed at approximately 660 nm.

Reduced wound healing time in superficial tissue, accompanied by less pain and inflammation, have been observed as beneficial effects of PBM [11]. Recent investigations have also been demonstrated to increase angiogenesis in wound repair and offer beneficial effects following myocardial infarction [12, 13]. PBM has also been widely used in dentistry due to established benefits of faster oral wound healing and pain relief [14, 15], and most notably with success in treating cancer patients with oral mucositis. Critically, PBM has demonstrated some positive effects in cerebral stroke models through inhibition of the secondary cascade and promoting neurogenesis [16].

A reduction in cell death due to apoptosis has been observed as an effect of PBM in a variety of models. A recent study reported attenuation of TNF/CHX induced apoptosis in squamous endothelial cells [17]. Similar reductions of programmed cell death were observed by a study into gingival fibroblast growth, where irradiated fibroblast colonies lost fewer cells to apoptosis compared with ambient light controls [18]. In vivo studies have also supported these findings, demonstrating attenuation of apoptosis in gastrocnemius myocytes following high intensity exercise in a murine model [19]. Other similar investigations have also observed a reduction of apoptosis in submandibular salivary glands in a diabetic rat model [20].

The exact mechanism by which PBM exhibits these positive biological responses is not fully understood, although it is proposed that the direct or indirect modulation of the enzyme cytochrome c oxidase (COX) is integral to the effect. COX is a large transmembrane protein complex located in the inner mitochondrial membrane [8]. Four metallic centres within its structure act as photoacceptors, transducing photosignals [8, 21]. COX stimulation using red and near-infrared (NIR) light causes the activity of the electron transport chain to increase, ultimately increasing the abundance of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) [8, 21, 22]. It is proposed that photons (of sufficient intensity and number) are absorbed by COX within the mitochondria [8, 22, 23]. This absorption potentiates the oxidative metabolic cascade resulting in beneficial effects of PBM [22, 24]. However, control cell lines and those lacking COX demonstrate cell proliferation [25], suggesting that some effects of PBM are via alternative pathways.

Initial studies investigating the effects of PBM on TBI within animal models have demonstrated potential translatable benefit including reduction in lesion size (up to 50%), improvements in objective neurological function, and reductions in observable trauma-related degeneration [26, 27]. Although not directly considered in these investigations, effects are likely to be related to the reduction in apoptotic cell loss as demonstrated in non-TBI PBM studies [17, 18, 28].

The intensity (irradiance) and total time of light exposure have long been identified as key factors in the magnitude of the beneficial effect of PBM [29], however, there is little evidence in the literature to indicate the optimum dose for survival benefit in neurological tissue. The range of light intensities (irradiance (mWcm-2), fluence (J/cm2) and the dose (J) discussed in the generic literature leading to clinically significant effects on cell survival and tissue regeneration imply that transcranial delivery of the photons may not deliver a sufficient dose [30]. It may also be the case that the optimal photon dose varies between individual subjects, or different discrete regions of a given target tissue or organ.

Conceptually, the optical apparatus required for tissue photon delivery represent a potential for a simultaneous direct to tissue optical monitoring interface. Through simultaneous optical monitoring, the effect of PBM may be contemporaneously observed using a range of spectroscopic techniques, particularly Raman spectroscopy [31, 32]. Variations over time in the acquired optical spectra may represent a viable method of metering optimal dose and achieving the optimal desired effect.

Raman spectroscopy produces chemically specific optical signatures by utilising the inelastic scattering of coherent light, detecting the shift in wavelengths (cm-1) observed following the energy change between light and matter [33]. Incident photons vibrate the molecules forming the target substance before scattering and the re-captured photons can be collected to form a spectrum of peaks indicating the biochemical structure of the substance [31, 32]. Raman spectroscopy for biological analysis typically use incident wavelengths in the visible/NIR region of the electromagnetic spectrum, with sensitivity to detected photons from biological molecules with wavenumbers in the region of 600–1800 cm-1 and 2500–3400 cm-1 [34]. Raman spectroscopy is sensitive, rapid and achieved without labelling or strict sample preparation [33]. Optimising the acquisition settings for biological samples would allow for non-destructive diagnoses or monitoring, applicable to intra-cranial access to brain tissue.

Aims

1) To evaluate the potential of 660 nm PBM in reducing the quantity of brain tissue cells lost to apoptosis in a hippocampal organotypic slice culture model (as an in vitro TBI model). Here we will also investigate the influence of irradiance, the effect of irradiance and exposure time (total photon dose), and consecutive daily doses on the number of cells initiating programmed cell death within the cultured tissue.

2) To investigate changes in tissue optical (Raman) spectroscopic signature elicited by PBM along with its relation to photon dose, and from this consider if a specific signature in tissue Raman spectrum can be developed as a feedback marker to confirm optimal or adequate tissue dosage.

Materials and methods

1) Sprague-Dawley rat hippocampus organotypic slice model

A hippocampectomy was performed immediately post-mortem on adult Sprague-Dawley rats under Home Office licence, sacrificed via carbon dioxide toxicity. Once performed, 150 μm hippocampal slices were separated (Fig 1). Individual slices were then placed onto polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) semi-permeable membranes (4 slices per membrane) incorporated into individual well inserts (Millicell® cell culture inserts, Millipore, PICM03050) fitting into a standard 6 well culture plate (Sigma®, SIAL0516). Glucose fortified B27-supplemented neurobasal medium (sNBA) solution (1 ml) was then added to each well. Plates containing the slices were light protected using foil and incubated at 37°C / 5% CO2. The initial dissection and slicing of the tissue, particularly the manual slice separation serves as an in vitro analogue of TBI, not requiring the stable culture population and injury calibration of previously described ‘stretch’ models [35]. A daily visual assessment was undertaken. All subsequent analysis would be carried out on tissue and media harvested from this process, paired control and intervention samples were obtained from the same sacrificed specimens.

Fig 1. Overview of organotypic hippocampal slice model preparation and administration of PBM.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

(1) Sprague-Dawley rats were sacrificed; (2) hippocampal dissection (further in top right panel images A-J); (3) manual slice preparation; (4) demonstration of the regions of interest per slice (two slices shown); (5) standard six well culture plate; (6) culture plates exposed to irradiance; (7) culture plates exposed to ambient light; (8) photograph of LED arrangement for irradiance exposure.

2) Photon dose delivery, beam profile and calibration

Therapeutic light of 660 nm wavelength was delivered in a single daily dose using a variable irradiance calibrated LED light source array (BioThor device, Thor Photobiomedicine). This wavelength was selected as it has demonstrated the greatest efficacy within the current limited subject literature [19–24]. Light intensity was controlled using a variable voltage power supply. Irradiance and beam homogeneity were confirmed via UV Vis Spectroscopy and beam profiling respectively.

2.1. Spectrophotometric light characterisation

The BioTHOR plate irradiator was spectroradiometrically characterised using a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) calibrated fiber coupled spectrophotometer (USB400 UV-Vis Spectrometer, Ocean Optics) to obtain information on absolute irradiance and wavelength (Fig 2). Prior to calibration, the spectrometer was assembled with a 200 μM optical fiber and CC3 opal glass cosine corrector (3.9mm diameter). Following calibration, an empty 6-well plate was placed into the plate carrier with an aluminium ‘mask’ directly below the plate so only the area corresponding to the wells were exposed to light. The cosine corrector of the calibrated fiber was placed centrally into each well of the 6- well plate so that the surface of the cosine corrector was in contact with the lower surface of the well to allow the measurement of the amount of light delivered during in vitro irradiation of hippocampal slices. Adjustment of the supply voltage to the array to pre-determined values supplied by the manufacturer allowed specific irradiances to be delivered to the plates. The spectral irradiance was recorded using Ocean View software (Ocean Optics, UK) and the absolute irradiance was calculated from the integral of the emission trace.

Fig 2. Characterisation of the LED array to confirm spectral irradiance and beam homogeneity.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Each well is irradiated by 47 miniature LEDs with Gaussian beam profiles (a). However, at the surface of the 6-well plate a homogenous beam profile is produced due to divergence of the beams from the individual LEDs and scattering at the plate surface. This produces a uniform irradiance with an average irradiance of 21.25 mW/cm2, 42.44 mW/cm2 and 84.99 mW/cm2 for the three tested light intensities (b and c) (measured at tissue level, with a beam diameter equal to well diameter = 34.8mm). Fluence values for 1 min exposure time: LT1 = 1.28 J/cm2; LT2 = 2.55 J/cm2; LT3 = 5.10 J/cm2. Total power output of array (when delivering 42.44 mW/cm2 at tissue level) = 4.244 W.

2.2 Beam profile measurements

The beam profile of the BioTHOR plate irradiator was determined using a CCD based beam profiler camera (Spiricon SP620, Ophir) following optical and linear calibration. The camera was focused onto the clear lower surface of a 6-well plate and beam profiles were measured either with or without a diffuser target screen (Opal glass target screen, Thorlabs) placed between the 6-well plate and light source. For each measurement, an ambient light correction was applied and images were recorded statically to assess the homogeneity of the beam delivered in each well.

2.3 Dosing

A commencing dose of 2 minutes irradiance at 42.4 mW/cm2 daily was selected. The six well plate containing slices to be treated (intervention plates) was placed on the source, covered over with an ambient shield. Control plates containing hippocampal slices from the same sacrificed animals (identically and contemporaneously prepared and incubated adjacent to the intervention plates) were placed in ambient light during treatment. All plates were foil shielded as soon as the light therapy was completed and then returned to the incubator.

3) ImmunoFluorescent cell imaging

NucView 488 Caspase-3 was utilised as a fluorescent apoptotic cell marker. Caspase-3 is a key enzyme within the apoptotic pathway, and once activated (as apoptosis is triggered) it cleaves the NucView 488 substrate, liberating the fluorescent product. On the final day of culture, the media within each well was replaced with 1 ml of media containing Nucview 488 (1/200 dilution e.g 5 μl NucView in 995μl glucose fortified sNBA). Plates were then incubated for a further 4 hours. The well media was then replaced with 1 ml 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) and incubated for 20 minutes shielded from light at room temperature. The membrane inserts containing hippocampal slices then underwent three consecutive washes in phosphate buffered saline (5 minutes per wash). These were then removed from their respective wells and mounted using VECTASHIELD® antifade mounting medium containing 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) for the purpose of additional discreet nuclear marking. A Zeiss axioscope was used for the purpose of fluorescent imaging. Three specific and consistently recognisable regions were imaged on each hippocampal slice, the dentate gyri, and the coru ammonis (CA) regions 1 + 2. Three images were obtained for each region without Z stack: an image showing the total number of cells (DAPI fluorescent blue channel); an image showing only the apoptotic cells (NucView 488 related green channel); and a merged image to observe the relative ratio of these. Images were discarded where image quality was deemed poor or corrupted with artefact or inclusion.

For live cell imaging experiments (investigating the effect of consecutive daily PBM doses), imaging took place daily. Media was replaced each day with 1 ml media containing the Nucview 488 and pure DAPI (5 μl NucView and 1 μl pure DAPI in 994 μl sNBA). Plates were then incubated at 37°C, 5% CO2 for 4 hours. Following incubation, images were taken as per the above protocol, however without removal of the membranes or fixation. The fluorescent media was then removed and replaced with sNBA. As a contrast agent for cell nuclei was not applied, only absolute numbers of cells entering (caspase-mediated) apoptosis are obtained. The next PBM dose was then applied where applicable. Plates were then returned to the incubator (37°C, 5% CO2).

Images obtained were then analysed and automatic cell counts acquired using ImageJ (NIH, University of Wisconsin, USA). For each slice in all three regions (DG, CA1, CA2), the total cell numbers (DAPI blue channel fluorescence) and apoptotic cells (NucView) were counted providing a percentage ratio of cells that had initiated apoptotic cell death.

4) Tissue Raman spectroscopy

Immediately after the final PBM or control treatment in each individual culture experiment, individual slices retrieved from the culture wells were placed onto an aluminium backing plate (for optical noise reduction) and gentle pressure exerted on the tissue sample directly to create a (visually) homogenous Raman scanning surface of uniform thickness. Spectroscopy was carried out using an inVia™ confocal Raman microscope with incorporated spectrometer (Renishaw, Wotton-under-Edge, UK), The integrated ‘WiRE’ software package (Renishaw, Wotton-under-Edge, UK) was used for acquisition and image processing. After surface focusing using 20x objective magnification, a 633 nm laser at 100% device specific power was used to obtain spectra. A total of 3 x 6 second exposures were obtained to formulate the definitive spectrum from each hippocampal slice. Acquisition and processing were carried out in line with previous investigations undertaken [32, 36]. Based on previous investigation the peak intensity at 1440 cm-1 and 1660 cm-1 were the focus of analysis along with their respective ratios (due to expected variability in raw data absolute quantity).

5) Statistical analysis

Data was assessed for normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk) and resultantly where data was non-parametric, a Mann-Whitney statistical test was used to ascertain the significance between the two considered continuous variables (intervention and control). A paired student’s t-test was utilised for statistical analysis in the case of normally distributed data (effect of PBM on apoptosis in intervention and control samples), with matched intervention/control samples taken from a single sacrificed specimen. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant within this context. Tukey HSD was utilised for multiple comparisons (cumulative effect of daily exposure). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (IBM 2019).

6) Animal research

All experimental protocols were approved by the University of Birmingham and performed under the Home Office licence held by our department. All experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Reporting of methods follows the recommendation of the ARRIVE guidelines.

Results

1) Initial effect

An initial control group of 28 slices (82 observed regions of interest (ROI)) was compared with a light irradiated group of 40 slices (95 ROI) from sacrificed animals (n = 5). An initial 2 minutes of PBM at was applied daily for 5 consecutive days at an irradiance of 42.4 mW/cm2 (LT2). On average, significantly more apoptotic cells 62.8±12.2% vs 48.6±13.7% (P<0.0001) per region were observed in the control group compared with the PBM irradiated group (Fig 3). The individual slice with the highest percentage of apoptotic cells (85.6%) occurred within the control group. Conversely, the irradiated group contained the slice with the lowest percentage of apoptotic cells (14.1%). A differential benefit (in terms of proportion of cells lost to apoptosis) was also observed between individual hippocampal regions (Fig 4).

Fig 3. Initial observed effect in the reduction of cell loss to apoptosis.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

LT = light therapy (PBM). **** denotes P < 0.0001, error bars represent standard deviation (SD).

Fig 4. Differential effect of LT2 on the individual hippocampal regions observed.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

LT2 = 660nm irradiation for two minutes per day over a 5 day culture. ** denotes P < 0.01, * denotes P < 0.05, error bars represent SD. CA1 = cornu Ammonis 1, CA2 = cornu Ammonis 2, DG = dentate gyrus, DAPI = 4’, 6-diamidino-2-phenylindole.

2) Effect of irradiance

To assess the effect of irradiance, 5 day cultures with daily (2 minute) treatments at an irradiance of 21.3 mW/cm2 (LT1), and 85.0 mW/cm2 (LT3) were undertaken for comparison with the initial 42.4 mW/cm2 (LT2). LT1 and LT3 were applied in a total of 20 and 24 hippocampal slices (n = 57 and n = 67 ROI, respectively) along with 18 contemporaneous control slices (n = 35 ROI) from sacrificed specimens (n = 4). Within the LT1 treated slices 45.8±12.7% of observable cells underwent apoptosis, significantly less than the 62.8±12.2% observed in the control specimens (Fig 5; P < 0.0001). Within the LT2 treated slices the observable apoptotic cell population was 43.9±14.6% and 54.7±11.9% in the LT3 group, both significantly lower than control (Fig 5; P = 0.0018 and P < 0.0001, respectively).

Fig 5. Effect of irradiance—% of apoptotic cells in each group, LT1 = 21.3 mW/cm2, LT2 = 42.4 mW/cm2, LT3 = 85.0 mW/cm2.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

**** denotes P < 0.0001, *** denotes P < 0.001, ** denotes P < 0.01, error bars represent SD. DAPI = 4’, 6-diamidino-2-phenylindole.

3) Effect of dose duration

Daily doses of 1 minute, 2 minutes (initial) and 3 minutes were applied to the 5 day slice culture model. In total, 14 slices (n = 41 ROI) received 1 minute of irradiation a day, 14 slices received 2 minutes (n = 39 ROI) and 15 slices (n = 44 ROI) received 3 minutes. The previously ascertained optimal intensity of 42.44 mW/cm2 was applied, with a contemporaneous control group of 15 slices (n = 43 ROI) cultured from a total of 3 sacrificed specimens (n = 3). The mean proportions of apoptotic cells observed in control slices was 60.2±11.0% compared with 51.6±17.0% in the 1 minute group (P = 0.0066), 54.6±13.5% in the 2 minute group (P = 0.0437), and 61.4±15.2% in the 3 minute group (P = 0.182) (Fig 6).

Fig 6. Percentage of apoptotic cells in response to varying light therapy durations, either 1, 2 or 3 minutes per day over 5 days.

Fig 6

Open in a new tab

** denotes P < 0.01, * denotes P < 0.05, error bars represent SD. DAPI = 4’, 6-diamidino-2-phenylindole.

4) Cumulative effect of daily doses

A simultaneous 5 day culture with daily live imaging was undertaken with: (1) a control group of 10 slices (no light therapy, n = 27 ROI), a 1 day group of 10 slices (receiving one dose of light therapy 0 h after injury and no further doses, n = 27 ROI), a 2 day group of 10 slices (receiving two doses of light therapy at 0 h and 24 h after injury then no further doses, n = 30 ROI), a 3 day group of 9 slices (receiving three doses of light therapy at 0 h, 24 h and 48 h after injury and no further doses, n = 25) and a 4 day group of 10 slices (received four doses of light therapy at 0 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h after injury, n = 28 ROI). Slices were taken from 4 sacrificed animals (n = 4). Daily treatment given was 1 min exposure to LT2.

The control group of slices showed a steady reduction in apoptotic cell death over the 4 day experiment (Table 1). After 2 days, no group of cultured slices demonstrated a significant reduction in apoptotic cells compared with the control. At 3 and 4 days, intervention groups had significant apoptosis reduction compared with the control group (P = 0.039 and P = 0.008 respectively). A cumulative beneficial effect was demonstrable (Fig 7) on daily doses.

Table 1. Proportion of apoptotic cell loss (%) at 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours in control (no PBM) 1, 2, 3, and 4 consecutive days of PBM.

24 hrs 48 hrs 72 hrs 96 hrs
Control 67.4±6.10% 64.7±4.02% 63.6±5.60% 62.4±4.00%
1 day 62.6±15.2% 62.1±5.05% 61.3±3.39% 60.4±3.84%
2 day 64.2±5.20% 59.2±8.59% 60.2±3.09% 59.7±3.84%
3 day 62.2±6.84% 58.6±5.54% 56.7±6.05% 56.8±3.83%
4 day 64.7±7.73% 61.8±4.55% 57.1±5.80% 54.7±5.27%
Open in a new tab

Fig 7. Effect of daily doses of irradiation on cell loss of LT2 (42.4mW/cm2) for 1 minute per day, for 1 to 4 days.

Fig 7

Open in a new tab

ns denotes no significance, ** denotes P < 0.01, error bars represent SD.

5) Raman spectroscopic signature of effect

After a 5 day organotypic culture, 36 slices underwent Raman spectroscopy (n = 18 control and n = 18 receiving LT2 irradiance therapy for 1 minute per day). For each of the spectra produced, the shift corresponding to the largest peaks in the control condition were 1440±0.7 cm-1 and 1659±0.8 cm-1. In the treatment condition, they were at 1440±0.6 cm-1 and 1658±0.6 cm-1. For brevity, the peaks in both groups were approximated to 1440 cm-1 and 1660 cm-1, respectively. In line with previously undertaken investigations [32, 36] focus centred chiefly on the magnitude of shift at these points in the acquired Raman spectra (Fig 8). Average intensity (peak size) at 1440 cm-1 was 1407±187 (au) and 1288±110 in the control and PBM conditions, respectively. The 1660cm-1 peak had a mean intensity of 1090±130 in the control samples, and 1291±66 in the treatment samples (Fig 6). There was a significant change in the average 1440/1660cm-1 peak ratio between the therapy and control groups (Mann-Whitney U, P = 0.0204), with the ratio increasing from 0.774 in the control group to 1.002 in the therapy group (24.8% relative increase in ratio).

Fig 8.

Fig 8

Open in a new tab

a) Comparative figure of average control and average PBM Raman spectra normalised, illustrating the changes in average intensity of the 1440 and 1660 cm-1 peaks, and highlighting the assigned, characteristic peaks of rat hippocampus. b) Comparative figure of normalised Raman spectra from average 3-day PBM samples and average 5-day PBM samples, no significant difference was observed between the 1660 cm-1/1440 cm-1 peak ratios at each therapeutic interval (p = 0.4). c) Box and Whisker plot illustrating the increase in average peak intensity ratio of 1660 cm-1/1440 cm-1, increasing from 0.774 for control samples to 1.002 for PBM samples (p = 0.0204).

An additional cohort of 14 slices was prepared. 7 of these underwent a 3 day slice culture with daily PBM at LT1 irradiance for 1 minute prior to Raman analysis, with the remaining 7 slices progressing to a 5 day (daily 1 minute LT1) culture before spectroscopic examination in order to observe the progression of the ratio over multiple daily doses. This culture was undertaken with an identical number of matched control slices. Here, an increase in 1440cm/1660 cm-1 ratio from the 3 day culture samples vs controls (0.757 vs 0.891; 17.7% increase, P = 0.092) was observed, along with a further increase in the ratio after 5 days. No significant difference was observed between the 1440cm/1660cm-1 peak ratios at each therapeutic interval (3 day vs 5 day; P = 0.4).

Discussion

The framework of this series of experiments is based on exploring the possibility of PBM as a clinically viable tool to improve cell survival within the context of moderate to severe TBI, with real-time Raman spectroscopic dose metering. The delivery of such a clinical tool would be heavily determined by the irradiance and duration of light exposure required to produce a clinically meaningful effect.

Irradiance with 660 nm light has demonstrated a significant improvement in cell survival. An exposure of 1 minute at an irradiance of 42 mW/cm2 had the greatest decrease in the number of apoptotic cells (an absolute reduction of 18.9%). This work has determined a biphasic pattern of irradiation dose: an increase from approximately 42 mW/cm2 led to an apparent reduction in effect. However, halving the dose demonstrated a statistically similar effect. Although the range of tested intensities and durations was limited and definitive quantities impossible to deduce, it may be reasonable to consider the optimal irradiance as between 21 and 42 mW/cm2. However, more investigation would be required to establish this precisely.

Similarly, when assessing the effect of the duration of exposure, 1 minute demonstrated the greatest magnitude of reduction in programmed cell death. Extension of duration to 2 and 3 minutes diminished the observed positive effects. From the observations on intensity and duration, we can infer that it is likely that a certain rate of delivery and/or a total number of absorbed photons will exert the greatest positive effect, although this investigation did not address the effects of exposure reciprocity, i.e. the potential to observe similar benefits for a prolonged duration at a reduced intensity, or an increased irradiance for a shorter time. These additional required investigations would provide evidence as to whether the total number of photons absorbed was the true proportional variable to effect magnitude.

Live daily image assessment demonstrated a positive cumulative effect of daily application of 1 minute PBM at the optimally established irradiance of approximately 42 mW/cm2. Daily application led to a progressive reduction in programmed cell death. The reduction in apoptosis within the live daily imaged control samples (reduction in live cell stock within the organotypic slice culture translating to a lower absolute number) was further decreased by the application of daily doses of PBM. When daily applications ceased, the trajectory of reduction returned to that of the control (Fig 5), suggesting that any observed positive effect is transient.

A further observation can be made from the differential benefit between hippocampal regions; the greatest magnitude of effect seemed to be realised by regions of lower mitotic activity and cell turnover [37]. This may have implications on PBM having the greatest benefits in cell preservation in tissues that have naturally low levels of mitosis/cellular division (the cerebral cortex).

Application of red/NIR PBM to neuronal cell culture has a background in the literature, and the findings here correlate with previous study. In SH-SY5Y cells, 635 nm light (18 J) has been shown to reduce mitochondria dependent apoptosis after sodium nitroprusside exposure [38]. Giuliani et al. have previously demonstrated that 670 nm at 0.45 mJ/cm2 stimulate neurite outgrowth and increased cell viability in conditions of oxidative stress in rat pheochromocytoma cells (PC12) [39]. In primary astrocyte cell culture, 660 nm light at 6 J/cm2 was found to promote cell proliferation [40]. Using 670 nm light, with Sommer and colleagues demonstrated that PBM significantly increased cell proliferation in amyloid β stressed human neuroblastoma cells [41].

A fundamental limitation of this investigation is the organotypic model utilised. Here we have no quantified injury burden (as would be in previously described ‘stretch’ models [35]), and rely on the process of preparation together with the naturally suboptimal conditions of the in vitro environment to model the tissue injury. As a result, within the following hours and days, a sustained reduction in the number of cells is expected. The trajectory and ‘gradient’ of this rate of cell death will be steepend or flattened depending on any additional noxious or nourishing modifications to the culture environment. A quantified and reproducible insult, requiring a prolonged stable (without progressive and terminal loss of surviving cell stock) slice culture [42] was not reliably achievable within our laboratory infrastructure. Unacceptable levels of contamination and sample loss was experienced, leading to inconsistency and smaller data samples.

The Raman spectra recovered and compared between both control and intervention slices revealed a clear signature of tissue response to PBM (as tested at 42 mW/cm2 intensity for 1 minute per day). All characteristic peaks (identified and assigned in Table 2) are larger in magnitude for the average spectra of PBM samples than control, representing a greater number of protein, lipid, amino acid and glycogen molecular bonds, indicating fewer apoptotic cells. Due to Raman intensity having arbitrary units, and the expected variability in raw data absolute quantity, peak intensity between separate samples are not an ideal source of comparison. The most consistently comparable feature between samples in these spectra is the ratio between the largest peaks: at 1660 cm-1 and 1440 cm-1.

Table 2. Raman peak assignment for characteristic peaks identified in rat hippocampi spectra [43–47].

Peak Wavenumber (cm-1) Assignment Origin
1004 v(C-C) ring Phenylalanine
1063 v(C-C) lipids Phospholipids, Aliphatic side chains
1129 vs(COC), vs(PO2), v(CN), v(CC) Glycogen, DNA, Phenylalanine, Lipids, Aliphatic side chains
1209 vPh, δCHC, CH2 wagging and twisting Hydroxyproline, Tyrosine, Tryptophan, Phenylalanine
1263 Amide III, CH2 twisting Lipids
1297 δ(CH2) lipids, Amide III Aliphatic side chains, Lipids
1440 δ(CH2) lipids and proteins, CH2 twisting and bending Cholesterol, Phospholipids, Tyrosine, Proteins
1660 v(C = C) lipids, C = C stretching
Amide I		 Tyrosine, Lipids, Proteins, Alpha-helix/random coil
Open in a new tab

v = stretching; vs = symmetric stretching; δ = in-plane bending, Ph = Phenyl.

The 1660 cm-1 peak (Amide I region) is proposed to correspond with the number of protein bonds in the tissue. An increase in this peak intensity (increased presence of protein bonds) as seen in PBM spectra, corresponds with decreasing numbers of apoptotic cells. Conversely, the 1440 cm-1 peak is proposed to represent cholesterol bonds, which shows only a modest increase in intensity in PBM compared to control in our samples. Relative stability of the 1440 cm-1 peak between PBM and control permits its use as a reference point for the 1660cm-1 intensity, hence the 1440cm/1660cm-1 ratio.

Corresponding survival data was not acquired in this experiment: future investigation incorporating both data streams focusing on potential correlation between the magnitude change/ratio change in these peaks and the proportion of cells initiating apoptotic (and potentially necrotic) cell death is required. The implications of these observations are two-fold: firstly, it would provide a potential avenue for real time monitoring of the effects of PBM within the in vivo and/or clinical setting. Observing a shift in peak ratio may provide insight into when an optimal photon dose of PBM has been delivered, removing the risk of over- or under-dosing which would lead to a reduction in potential positive effect. Secondly, this shift in 1440/1660cm-1 ratio may have the potential to provide an independent measurement of brain injury burden and prognostic potential, allowing a real time roadmap of tissue recovery together with information regarding the effectiveness of other therapeutic interventions. Similar approaches have been undertaken previously to quantify the redox state of components in the mitochondrial cytochrome electron transport chain [48]. However, additional work into the optical Raman spectra of tissue irradiated by PBM is required to provide insight into the fundamental effect of light on cellular metabolism, giving a definitive answer to the mechanisms underpinning this photo-cellular effect.

A considerable strength of the present work amongst the literature is the rigorous accuracy in radiometry and dosing [49, 50]. This has been achievable through a collaborative approach between research groups, combining expertise in both photobiomodulation and neural repair. Further cross-disciplinary working has facilitated the integration of optical monitoring techniques into the model, which has demonstrated a spectroscopic “signature” for monitoring dose-effect. This modality for real-time feedback of effect alongside accurate radiometry has allowed development of a system which has the potential to permit therapeutic titration of PBM in a manner which has not been described previously.

Whilst previous work has adopted a transcranial approach to light delivery [16], irradiance within this order, and Raman spectroscopic monitoring, would require a direct-to-brain surface or intra-parenchymal approach at one or more points in order to achieve a meaningful effect. Together with the proposed dosing schedule, and should these observations be confirmed in further in vivo investigation, intracranial access of such a device would be required for sufficient delivery. The integration of an appropriate optical interface into a device delivering the current standard of care is potentially viable, posing a minimal risk burden to the treated individual. The current standard of care for the management of these conditions involves direct intracranial access, and the placement of an array of catheters into the brain parenchyma substance [51, 52]. Access to this is achieved via burr holes in the skull and is undertaken in all cases meeting the minimum severity requirement [52] with or without the requirement for surgical intervention. Intracranial light delivery in in vivo Parkinsonian models has been shown successful previously [53–55], demonstrating feasibility.

The development of this novel concept has resulted in a patent pending application from our group relating to the invasive delivery of PBM, together with the use of temporarily implanted apparatus to establish an optimal dose feedback loop via an optical spectroscopic brain interface (UK Patent Application No 2006201.4). The conceivable optical apparatus required to deliver a meaningful dose of PBM directly onto or into the brain substance (fibre optical), could be utilised for the Raman spectroscopic examination of the brain surface (an emission and detection fibre) and integrated into a single device [56]. As PBM treatment is only potentially required for a short time (1 minute) each day, the scope for establishing a spectroscopic interface to monitoring pathology, metering PBM dose and also tracking the deposition of pharmacological therapeutic agents is an exciting potential prospect for TBI care.

Conclusion

The application of 42 mW/cm2 of 660 nm light for 1 minute a day has a significant effect on reducing the number of cells lost to apoptosis in the organotypic slice culture considered here. The effects are cumulative daily. A clear Raman spectroscopic signature is observable and may provide a reliable biofeedback mechanism for the metering of optimal dose. The technology to integrate potential direct-to-brain PBM delivery together with real time biofeedback should be the subject of future investigation together with further research into its mechanistic underpinnings.

Acknowledgments

We thank James Carroll, THOR Photomedicine for supplying the BioTHOR device used in this study.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

DD received a grant from the Midland Neuroscience Teaching and Research Fund (University of Birmingham Grant Number 1001177) (https://mntrf.org.uk/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Langlois JA, Rutland-Brown W, Wald MM. The epidemiology and impact of traumatic brain injury: a brief overview. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2006;21(5):375–8. doi: 10.1097/00001199-200609000-00001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Raghupathi R. Cell death mechanisms following traumatic brain injury. Brain Pathol. 2004;14(2):215–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3639.2004.tb00056.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Minambres E, Ballesteros MA, Mayorga M, Marin MJ, Munoz P, Figols J, et al. Cerebral apoptosis in severe traumatic brain injury patients: an in vitro, in vivo, and postmortem study. J Neurotrauma. 2008;25(6):581–591. doi: 10.1089/neu.2007.0398 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Beattie MS, Farooqui AA, Bresnahan JC. Review of current evidence for apoptosis after spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2000;17(10):915–25. doi: 10.1089/neu.2000.17.915 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Katoh K, Ikata T, Katoh S, Hamada Y, Nakauchi K, Sano T, et al. Induction and its spread of apoptosis in rat spinal cord after mechanical trauma. Neurosci Lett. 1996;216(1):9–12. doi: 10.1016/0304-3940(96)12999-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bullock MR, Chesnut R, Ghajar J, Gordon D, Hartl R, Newell DW, et al. Surgical management of traumatic brain injury. Neurosurgery. 2006;58(3):16–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Okonkwo DO, Shutter LA, Moore C, Temkin NR, Puccio AM, Madden CJ, et al. Brain tissue oxygen monitoring and management in severe traumatic brain injury (BOOST-II): a phase II randomized trial. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(11):1907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Karu TI, Kolyakov SF. Exact action spectra for cellular responses relevant to phototherapy. Photomed Laser Ther. 2005;23(4):355–61. doi: 10.1089/pho.2005.23.355 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hamblin MR. Mechanisms and Mitochondrial Redox Signaling in Photobiomodulation HHS Public Access. Photochem Photobiol. 2018;94(2):199–212. doi: 10.1111/php.12864 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Salehpour F, Mahmoudi J, Kamari F, Sadigh-Eteghad S, Rasta SH, Hamblin MR. Brain Photobiomodulation Therapy: a Narrative Review. Mol Neurobiol [Internet]. 2018. Aug 1 [cited 2022 Feb 3];55(8):6601–36. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29327206/ doi: 10.1007/s12035-017-0852-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Eells JT, Wong-Riley MT, VerHoeve J, Henry M, Buchman E V., Kane MP, et al. Mitochondrial signal transduction in accelerated wound and retinal healing by near-infrared light therapy. Mitochondrion. 2004;4(5–6):559–67. doi: 10.1016/j.mito.2004.07.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.El Gammal ZH, Zaher AM, N. E-B. Effect of low-level laser-treated mesenchymal stem cells on myocardial infarction. Lasers Med Sci. 2017;32(7):1637–46. doi: 10.1007/s10103-017-2271-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.de Medeiros ML, Araújo-Filho I, da Silva EMN, de Sousa Queiroz WS, Soares CD, de Carvalho MGF. Effect of low-level laser therapy on angiogenesis and matrix metalloproteinase-2 immunoexpression in wound repair. Lasers Med Sci. 2017;32(1):35–43. doi: 10.1007/s10103-016-2080-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sun G, Tunér J. Low-level laser therapy in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2004;48(4):1061–76. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2004.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Asnaashari M, Safavi N. Application of Low level Lasers in Dentistry (Endodontic). Lasers Med Sci. 2013;4(2):57–66. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Oron A, Oron U, Chen J, Eilam A, Zhang C, Sadeh M, et al. Low-Level Laser Therapy Applied Transcranially to Rats After Induction of Stroke Significantly Reduces Long-Term Neurological Deficits. Stroke. 2006;37(10):2620–4. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000242775.14642.b8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chu Y-H, Chen S-Y, Hsieh Y-L, Teng Y-H, Cheng Y-J. Low-level laser therapy prevents endothelial cells from TNF-α/cycloheximide-induced apoptosis. Lasers Med Sci. 2018;33(2):279–86. doi: 10.1007/s10103-017-2364-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pansani TN, Basso FG, Turirioni AP., Kurachi C, Hebling J, de Souza Costa C. Effects of low-level laser therapy on the proliferation and apoptosis of gingival fibroblasts treated with zoledronic acid. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43(8):1030–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.02.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sussai DA, Carvalho PDTC De, Dourado DM, Belchior ACG, Dos Reis FA, Pereira DM. Low-level laser therapy attenuates creatine kinase levels and apoptosis during forced swimming in rats. Lasers Med Sci [Internet]. 2010. Jan [cited 2021 Mar 1];25(1):115–20. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19554361/ doi: 10.1007/s10103-009-0697-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Fukuoka CY, Simões A, Uchiyama T, Arana-Chavez VE, Abiko Y, Kuboyama N, et al. The Effects of Low-Power Laser Irradiation on Inflammation and Apoptosis in Submandibular Glands of Diabetes-Induced Rats. Bianchi C, editor. PLoS One [Internet]. 2017. Jan 18 [cited 2021 Mar 1];12(1):e0169443. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169443 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Karu TI. Multiple roles of cytochrome c oxidase in mammalian cells under action of red and IR-A radiation [Internet]. Vol. 62, IUBMB Life. IUBMB Life; 2010. [cited 2021 Mar 1]. p. 607–10. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20681024/ doi: 10.1002/iub.359 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Chung H, Dai T, Sharma SK, Huang YY, Carroll JD, Hamblin MR. The nuts and bolts of low-level laser (Light) therapy. Ann Biomed Eng [Internet]. 2012. Feb [cited 2021 Mar 1];40(2):516–33. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC3288797/ doi: 10.1007/s10439-011-0454-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gonzalez-Lima F, Rojas. Low-level light therapy of the eye and brain. Eye Brain [Internet]. 2011. Oct [cited 2021 Mar 1];3:49. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC5436183/ doi: 10.2147/EB.S21391 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Huang YY, Chen ACH, Carroll JD, Hamblin MR. Biphasic dose response in low level lightherapy. Dose-Response [Internet]. 2009. [cited 2021 Mar 1];7(4):358–83. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC2790317/ doi: 10.2203/dose-response.09-027.Hamblin [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lima PLV, Pereira CV, Nissanka N, Arguello T, Gavini G, Maranduba C, et al. Photobiomodulation enhancement of cell proliferation at 660 nm does not require cytochrome c oxidase. J Photochem Photobiol B [Internet]. 2019. May 1 [cited 2021 Aug 5];194:71–5. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30927704/ doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2019.03.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Xuan W, Vatansever F, Huang L, Wu Q, Xuan Y, Dai T, et al. Transcranial Low-Level Laser Therapy Improves Neurological Performance in Traumatic Brain Injury in Mice: Effect of Treatment Repetition Regimen. Borlongan C V., editor. PLoS One [Internet]. 2013. Jan 7 [cited 2021 Mar 1];8(1):e53454. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Quirk BJ, Torbey M, Buchmann E, Verma S, Whelan HT. Near-infrared photobiomodulation in an animal model of traumatic brain injury: Improvements at the behavioral and biochemical levels. Photomed Laser Surg. 2012. Sep 1;30(9):523–9. doi: 10.1089/pho.2012.3261 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Liang J, Liu L, Xing D. Photobiomodulation by low-power laser irradiation attenuates Aβ-induced cell apoptosis through the Akt/GSK3β/β-catenin pathway. Free Radic Biol Med [Internet]. 2012. Oct 1 [cited 2021 Mar 1];53(7):1459–67. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22917976/ doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2012.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lanzafame RJ, Stadler I, Kurtz AF, Connelly R, A. T, Brondon P, et al. Reciprocity of exposure time and irradiance on energy density during photoradiation on wound healing in a murine pressure ulcer model. Lasers Surg Med [Internet]. 2007. Jul 1 [cited 2021 Mar 1];39(6):534–42. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/lsm.20519 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Jagdeo JR, Adams LE, Brody NI, Siegel DM. Transcranial Red and Near Infrared Light Transmission in a Cadaveric Model. PLoS One [Internet]. 2012. Oct 15 [cited 2021 Mar 1];7(10). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23077622/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Köhler M, MacHill S, Salzer R, Krafft C. Characterization of lipid extracts from brain tissue and tumors using Raman spectroscopy and mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem [Internet]. 2009. Mar 20 [cited 2021 Mar 1];393(5):1513–20. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-008-2592-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Banbury C, Mason R, Styles I, Eisenstein N, Clancy M, Belli A, et al. Development of the Self Optimising Kohonen Index Network (SKiNET) for Raman Spectroscopy Based Detection of Anatomical Eye Tissue. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2019. Dec 1 [cited 2021 Mar 1];9(1):1–9. Available from: www.nature.com/scientificreports doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-37186-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hanlon EB, Manoharan R, Koo TW, Shafer KE, Motz JT, Fitzmaurice M, et al. Prospects for in vivo Raman spectroscopy [Internet]. Vol. 45, Physics in Medicine and Biology. Phys Med Biol; 2000. [cited 2021 Mar 9]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10701500/ [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Shipp DW, Sinjab F, Notingher I. Spectroscopy, Raman; (180.5655) Raman microscopy; (300.6230) Spectroscopy, coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering; (170.3880) Medical and biological imaging. 2017. [cited 2022 Feb 3]; Available from: 10.1364/aop.XX.XXXXXX [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Morrison B III, Cater HL, Benham CD, Sundstrom LE. An in vitro model of traumatic brain injury utilising two-dimensional stretch of organotypic hippocampal slice cultures. J Neurosci Methods. 2006;150(2):192–201. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2005.06.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Banbury C, Styles I, Eisenstein N, Zanier ER, Vegliante G, Belli A, et al. Spectroscopic detection of traumatic brain injury severity and biochemistry from the retina. Biomed Opt Express. 2020;11(11):6249–61. doi: 10.1364/BOE.399473 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ferland RJ, Gross RA, Applegate CD. Increased mitotic activity in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus of adult C57BL/6J mice exposed to the flurothyl kindling model of epileptogenesis. Neuroscience. 2002. Dec 9;115(3):669–83. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4522(02)00514-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lim WB, Kim JH, Gook EB, Kim JS, Ko YJ, Kim IA, et al. Inhibition of mitochondria-dependent apoptosis by 635-nm irradiation in sodium nitroprusside-treated SH-SY5Y cells. Free Radic Biol Med [Internet]. 2009. Sep 15 [cited 2022 Feb 3];47(6):850–7. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19545621/ doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2009.06.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Giuliani A, Lorenzini L, Gallamini M, Massella A, Giardino L, Calzà L. Low infra red laser light irradiation on cultured neural cells: Effects on mitochondria and cell viability after oxidative stress. BMC Complement Altern Med [Internet]. 2009. Apr 15 [cited 2022 Feb 3];9(1):1–10. Available from: https://bmccomplementmedtherapies.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6882-9-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Yoon SR, Hong N, Lee MY, Ahn JC. Photobiomodulation with a 660-Nanometer Light-Emitting Diode Promotes Cell Proliferation in Astrocyte Culture. Cells 2021, Vol 10, Page 1664 [Internet]. 2021 Jul 2 [cited 2022 Feb 3];10(7):1664. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/10/7/1664/htm doi: 10.3390/cells10071664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sommer AP, Bieschke J, Friedrich RP, Zhu D, Wanker EE, Fecht HJ, et al. 670 nm laser light and EGCG complementarily reduce amyloid-β aggregates in human neuroblastoma cells: Basis for treatment of alzheimer’s disease? Photomed Laser Surg. 2012. Jan 1;30(1):54–60. doi: 10.1089/pho.2011.3073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Humpel C. Neuroscience forefront review organotypic brain slice cultures: A review. Vol. 305, Neuroscience. Elsevier Ltd; 2015. p. 86–98. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.07.086 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Staniszewska-Slezak E, Malek K, Baranska M. Complementary analysis of tissue homogenates composition obtained by Vis and NIR laser excitations and Raman spectroscopy. Spectrochim Acta—Part A Mol Biomol Spectrosc [Internet]. 2015. Aug 5 [cited 2021 Mar 9];147:245–56. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25847786/ doi: 10.1016/j.saa.2015.03.086 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Sacharz J, Wesełucha-Birczyńska A, Zięba-Palus J, Lewandowski MH, Kowalski R, Palus K, et al. Epileptic rat brain tissue analyzed by 2D correlation Raman spectroscopy. Spectrochim Acta—Part A Mol Biomol Spectrosc [Internet]. 2018. Jan 5 [cited 2021 Mar 9];188:581–8. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28772144/ doi: 10.1016/j.saa.2017.07.046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Galli R, Meinhardt M, Koch E, Schackert G, Steiner G, Kirsch M, et al. Rapid Label-Free Analysis of Brain Tumor Biopsies by Near Infrared Raman and Fluorescence Spectroscopy—A Study of 209 Patients. Front Oncol [Internet]. 2019. Nov 5 [cited 2021 Mar 9];9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31750251/ doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Muthuselvi C, Pandiaraja SS, Ravikumar B, Athimoolam S, Srinivasan N, Krishnakum RV. FT-IR and FT-Raman Spectroscopic Analyzes of Indeno Quinoxaline Derivative Crystal. Asian J Appl Sci. 2018. Mar 15;11(2):83–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kumar V, Panikar Y, Palafox MA, Vats J, Kostova I, Lang K, et al. Ab-initio calculations, FT-IR and FT-Raman spectra of 2-chloro-6-methyl benzonitrile. Indian J Pure Appl Phys. 2010;48. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Lalonde JW, O’Connor SP, Noojin GD, Gonzales CC, Yakovlev V V., Denton ML. Measuring cytochrome c redox state using resonance Raman spectroscopy to determine metabolic rates in electron transport chain when exposed to light. In: Hamblin MR, Carroll JD, Arany P, editors. Mechanisms of Photobiomodulation Therapy XIV [Internet]. SPIE; 2019. [cited 2021 Mar 1]. p. 18. Available from: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/10861/2508684/Measuring-cytochrome-c-redox-state-using-resonance-Raman-spectroscopy-to/10.1117/12.2508684.full [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Hadis MA, Cooper PR, Milward MR, Gorecki PC, Tarte E, Churm J, et al. Development and application of LED arrays for use in phototherapy research. J Biophotonics [Internet]. 2017. Nov 1 [cited 2021 Mar 21];10(11):1514–25. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28164460/ doi: 10.1002/jbio.201600273 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Hadis MA, Zainal SA, Holder MJ, Carroll JD, Cooper PR, Milward MR, et al. The dark art of light measurement: accurate radiometry for low-level light therapy [Internet]. Vol. 31, Lasers in Medical Science. Springer; London; 2016. [cited 2021 Mar 21]. p. 789–809. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26964800/ doi: 10.1007/s10103-016-1914-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Tisdall MM, Smith M. Multimodal monitoring in traumatic brain injury: current status and future directions. Br J Anaesth [Internet]. 2007. Jul 1 [cited 2021 Mar 1];99(1):61–7. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0007091217347906 doi: 10.1093/bja/aem143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Smith M. Monitoring intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury. Anesth Analg [Internet]. 2008. Jan [cited 2021 Mar 1];106(1):240–8. Available from: http://journals.lww.com/00000539-200801000-00042 doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000297296.52006.8e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Reinhart F, Massri N El, Chabrol C, Cretallaz C, Johnstone DM, Torres N, et al. Intracranial application of near-infrared light in a hemi-parkinsonian rat model: The impact on behavior and cell survival. J Neurosurg. 2016. Jun 1;124(6):1829–41. doi: 10.3171/2015.5.JNS15735 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Moro C, El Massri N, Torres N, Ratel D, De Jaeger X, Chabrol C, et al. Photobiomodulation inside the brain: A novel method of applying near-infrared light intracranially and its impact on dopaminergic cell survival in MPTP-treated mice: Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg. 2014;120(3):670–83. doi: 10.3171/2013.9.JNS13423 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Darlot F, Moro C, El Massri N, Chabrol C, Johnstone DM, Reinhart F, et al. Near-infrared light is neuroprotective in a monkey model of Parkinson disease. Ann Neurol. 2016. Jan 1;79(1):59–75. doi: 10.1002/ana.24542 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Mowbray M, Banbury C, Rickard JJS, Davies DJ, Goldberg Oppenheimer P. Development and Characterization of a Probe Device toward Intracranial Spectroscopy of Traumatic Brain Injury. ACS Biomater Sci Eng [Internet]. 2021. Feb 22 [cited 2021 Mar 1];acsbiomaterials.0c01156. Available from: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.0c01156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Michael R Hamblin

2 Feb 2022

PONE-D-22-01807Photobiomodulation reduces hippocampal apoptotic cell death and produces a Raman spectroscopic “signature”PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Stevens,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Minor points raised by reviewer 2.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 19 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael R Hamblin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have a patent relating to material pertinent to this article. Please provide an amended statement of Competing Interests to declare this patent (with details including name and number), along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development or modified products etc. Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This in vitro study of photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) for reduction of hippocampal cell apoptosis is of good quality. I have no complaints. I think this preclinical paper contributes to the field of PBMT research.

Reviewer #2: The current manuscript is an interesting in vitro study regarding neuroprotective effects of red PBM on neuronal cell culture. Along with observed anti-apoptotic effects, a Raman spectroscopic signature was obviously observable. This probably can provide a reliable biofeedback mechanism for the PBM real-time dosimetry.

Here are some comments:

On line 30, for the sentence, you can cite recently published papers (e.g., PMID: 29164625; PMID: 29327206).

The English writing quality of the manuscript should be improved.

On line 76, PBM parameters such as irradiance, fluence, the dose should be reported as follow, respectively, mW/cm2, J/cm2, and J. The use of "irradiance, fluence, the dose" should be consistent throughout the manuscript.

On line 104, Irradiance refers to "Power density" not "Photon density".

On the paragraph starting from line 89, the functional wavelength spectrum of the Raman spectroscopy could be mentioned. In other words, this technique is sensitive to what particular range of the spectrum (e.g, visible, near-infrared, mid-infrared, far-infrared, etc)?

On line 153, "irradiance (power)" should be changed to "irradiance (power density)".

PBM parameters should be completely reported; Output power, fluence, beam diameter and area, beam profile (Gaussian or Hot top), the distance of the LED probe from the dishes, etc.

In the Discussion section, some of the previous in vitro studies on positive neuroprotective effects of 2.5 J/cm2 red light on neuronal cell culture can be discussed (see PMID: 33935090).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Farzad Salehpour

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Mar 3;17(3):e0264533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264533.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

9 Feb 2022

Dear Prof. Hamblin,

On behalf of all of our co-authors, I would like to extend our sincere thanks to you and the reviewers for the time and consideration of our article. We were greatly encouraged to read the positive responses from the reviewers on the scientific merit of our submitted work.

We have taken time to consider and act upon the suggestions for improvement offered to us by Reviewer 2, and we enclose an updated manuscript as requested which reflect the changes. The authors agree that the updated manuscript, with the changes described below, represents a considerable improvement to the original work, and we offer our further thanks for such comments for improvement.

The response to each suggestion is enclosed below in bold type face, with comments above in italics, and numbered for ease of reference.

1. On line 30, for the sentence, you can cite recently published papers (e.g., PMID: 29164625; PMID: 29327206).

Response: These citations have been added

2. The English writing quality of the manuscript should be improved.

Response: The document has been reviewed in its entirety, with minor changes made to grammar, phrasing and syntax which we hope the reviewers will agree has made a considerable improvement to the writing quality, without affecting the scientific content.

3. On line 76, PBM parameters such as irradiance, fluence, the dose should be reported as follow, respectively, mW/cm2, J/cm2, and J. The use of "irradiance, fluence, the dose" should be consistent throughout the manuscript.

Response: This sentence has been updated, and this nomenclature is reflected where mentioned and throughout the manuscript.

4. On line 104, Irradiance refers to "Power density" not "Photon density".

Response: We are in agreement with the reviewer that irradiance is not referring to “photon density”. The term “irradiance” has now been left, without further qualification, given clear establishment of terms relating to PBM parameters as suggested in point 3.

5. On the paragraph starting from line 89, the functional wavelength spectrum of the Raman spectroscopy could be mentioned. In other words, this technique is sensitive to what particular range of the spectrum (e.g, visible, near-infrared, mid-infrared, far-infrared, etc)?

Response: We have added a further sentence which clarifies the typical wavelengths used in Raman spectroscopy for biological samples, and the respective wavenumbers which are detected and typically represent spectra from biological molecules. We feel this is an adequate though succinct summary which addresses the point without over-elaboration on RS to a non-specialist readership.

6. On line 153, "irradiance (power)" should be changed to "irradiance (power density)".

Response: As discussed in the response to point 4, we have changed this to: “irradiance”

7. PBM parameters should be completely reported; Output power, fluence, beam diameter and area, beam profile (Gaussian or Hot top), the distance of the LED probe from the dishes, etc.

Response: We have added further detail as suggested. Irradiance values given have been measured at the level of the tissue plane, and this has been made clear in the revised manuscript and is now accompanied by respective fluence values for 1 min treatment time. With the images in figure 2, and with the well diameter, beam diameter and fluence values now given, we feel this is a complete reporting of the salient parameters (as outlined in our group’s previous work on the topic (PMID: 29694800).

8. In the Discussion section, some of the previous in vitro studies on positive neuroprotective effects of 2.5 J/cm2 red light on neuronal cell culture can be discussed (see PMID: 33935090).

Response: We thank the reviewer for their suggestion and have included a short discussion with reference to these articles.

Yours sincerely

Mr David Davies

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (18.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Michael R Hamblin

14 Feb 2022

Photobiomodulation reduces hippocampal apoptotic cell death and produces a Raman spectroscopic “signature”

PONE-D-22-01807R1

Dear Dr. Stevens,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Michael R Hamblin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Michael R Hamblin

18 Feb 2022

PONE-D-22-01807R1

Photobiomodulation reduces hippocampal apoptotic cell death and produces a Raman spectroscopic “signature”

Dear Dr. Stevens:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Michael R Hamblin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (18.5KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES